Why should I "C'mon" when it doesn't fly with any 3rd party studies whatsoever?
Instead of inserting words into his mouth that would contradict every 3rd party study done since the beginning of man, why not study it within its context? Fact: CLSN has never used the wrods "PFS" and "12 months" together.
12 months is the expected time progression FOR THE LOCAL TUMOR only. NOT for overall progression-free survival. 50% is in-line with large tumor recurrence at the site of ablation ONLY.
By the one, one of the investigators involved in the study rips the theory a new butt hole that "top docs, better RFA equipment" affects a thing since RFA is a simple procedure where the machine does all the work. And while I agree patients in trials tend to do better, I disagree that patients in liver cancer trials tend to do any better -- having white bed sheets doesn't slow the rate of such a lethala nd determined cancer such as HCC! Liver cancer progesses at its own pace and doesn't care what the settings are.
About 10 minutes into it. He also goes on to say that even the 50% number for local increases rapidly based on the size of the tumor.
Maybe he didn't make it clear so I will in Layman terms:
RFA for 3cm or greater tends to not do shit. For 5cm and above, don't even bother. Since much of our population in the phase III trial has large and multiple tumors, many of them over 5cm, there will be a significant amount of them are going to have recurrence very fast, within a few months or even weeks. 12 months is pure fantasy.